tv CNN Newsroom With John Berman and Poppy Harlow CNN January 9, 2018 7:00am-8:00am PST
genius and stability. we will wait for that. first, though, let's go to the white house, cnn's abby philip is there in advance of this big meeting, abby, what can we expect? >> good morning, john and poppy. well in just about an hour the white house will sit down with congressional leaders to try to bring both sides to the table. now they are still pretty far apart on the substance of this issue. both sides saying they want a daca deal of some form, but what are they willing to give up for it it's still hard it to know what the white house is going to give up in terms of that wall and some of the changed to legal immigration and illegal immigration. one of the issues right now also happens to be who is going to be in the room today with the president? some democrats are raising concerns that the meeting is not -- the meeting participants are not the group that is going to be necessary to bring a dole to the table. right now the white house has said that they're sending some staff members to this meeting including chief of staff john
kelly who we've learned is also taking the lead on these negotiations, stephen miller, who is a top aide to president obama who has been known to be pretty firm on immigration issues and kristjen nielsen the new homeland screw secretary and marc short, but it's the group of lawmakers part of the meeting that some democrats are raising concerns about, folks like tom cotton they view as opposed to the underlying idea of a daca deal, but there are others including democrats, dick durbin, jeff flake, a more moderate republican from arizona, lindsey graham, also someone who has been very favorable to trying to find a deal on daca, kevin mccarthy, republican house majority leader and steny hoyer. a very large group raising some questions whether this is a meeting about negotiation or a meeting about showing that the white house is involved in this
process. it's unclear whether the aim of the objective here is to come out of it with an actual deal on the table. john and poppy? >> that's a great question. abby philip at the white house thank you so much. let's pose that question to our dana bash, lucky to be joined by her because, dana, i mean, chief of staff john kelly will be at the meeting and take a central role and also taking a sort of unprecedented and central role in the immigration negotiations as a whole and as abby said is this going to be a photo op or a meeting with actual stuff coming out of it. >> probably more the former than the latter, although oddly, john and poppy, right now this bipartisan meeting with all of those democrats and republicans that abby showed, is not open to the press. sometimes these things change as we get closer to the event, but right now the cameras are not invited in. if this is for imagery, which i am told by a republican involved in the negotiations it largely
is to show that president is sitting down with democrats, he is willing to work across the aisle to get a deal on daca and all these other things done, you know, i assume at some point we'll see a picture of it. >> the white house is one side of these negotiations. in some ways there's the white house, congressional republicans and congressional democrats. you are hearing from congressional rinse and democrats about how they feel going in. there was a meeting last night up on capitol hill. >> that's right. republicans on capitol hill who are still and continue to be negotiating amongst themselves, abby talked about the sort of more conservative hawkish wing like tom cotton of arkansas to lindsey graham on the other side of the gop spectrum on this immigration issue, they are talking amongst themselves and they had the new dhs, the homeland security secretary, kristjen nielsen come up, stephen miller from the white house, try to figure out ways to
crack the code and find a middle ground on some of the things that aren't as talked about as much like the wall, the things like how you deal with what they call chain migration for citizens, how the notion of american citizens will be able to get their family members into this country, a lot of conservatives want that changed, interior enforcement and other issues, but at the end of the day, i have not talked to one republican who says that -- who has not said -- democrats too, this is all about the president. this is all up to the president. he is the one who's going to have to drag republicans along if there is a deal and give them cover, which is why having john kelly as the point person was a break-through for many republicans on capitol hill because they feel like there's a go-to guy with authority and as one source said to me today, he is more rationale than stephen miller, maybe not necessarily certainly not a dove on these issues, he's pretty hardline, but he is a more rationale
negotiator according to one republican source i talked to involved in these talks. >> all right. dana bash for us, thank you very much for being with us. >> thanks, dana. other news from washington, oprah's best friend, oprah winfrey's best friend -- >> only one. it would be president winfrey, no president oprah -- >> she can do whatever she wants, gayle king, oprah's best friend not quieting the speculation winfrey might make a presidential run in 2020. this is what king said. oprah's position hasn't changed but she is intrigued by the idea. >> brian stelter got us all intrigued yesterday morning when he broke the news she was actively considering this and you have more. >> now we have even more friends confirming that winfrey's listening to this idea, friends are calling her up urging her to run and she's thinking about it. here's what gayle king her self said on "cbs this morning." >> is she considering it? >> no, i absolutely don't think
that her position has changed. i don't. you know, i was up talking to her very late last night. i do think this, though, guys, i do think she's intrigued by the idea, i do think that. i also know that after years of watching "the oprah show" you always have a right to change your mind. i don't think at this point she is actually considering it, but listen, there are people who said they want to be her campaign manager, who want to quit their jobs and campaign for her. she loves this country and would like to be of service in some way but i don't think that she is actively -- >> for the record that is a -- >> i don't think she's actively considering it at this time. >> almost a contradiction here, gayle king saying oprah is not considering it but intrigued by the idea. i think we all know what king is doing here, we've seen this with hillary clinton and other past candidates, people want to be coy, play it cool, they want to be urged to run, they don't want to claim they're into it until
urged to run by others. gayle king, instead of saying there's nothings to this, she's not tamping down the fire, she's adding more fuel to the fire. >> you can say no. if the answer is no, definitive no, you say no. definitively no. as poppy was saying you have spoken to more people now. yesterday was two people. >> right. now we have other friends confirming the same sense that for the past few months, winfrey has been hearing from high-powered friends in business and other worlds saying you need to think about taking on trump. here's what a couple friends told me overnight. one said she's listening to a lot of people saying you can do this. another source close to oprah said i don't know what she'll do, she doesn't know what she'll do but this will be a long game. don't expect a decision next month or the month a after. with she will be out promoting a movie this spring, she has her "60 minutes" deal. the iowa caucuses are two years away just like elizabeth warren and joe biden and other potential 2020 contenders she's at least thinking about running for president.
>> what i was thinking about last night she did that "60 minutes" piece on criminal justice reform and one of her first "60 minutes" pieces bringing trump and clinton voters together. the round table. >> trying to bridge the divide. unify the country. she was actually trying to act like a president. >> brian stelter, thank you. >> thanks. our panel is with us, cnn political commentator former campaign manager for hillary clinton patty solis doyle and republican strategist rich galen. >> happy new year. >> happy new year to you, rich, to you what do you think oprah 2020? what does it mean for republicans? >> well, i mean it's not republicans' problems. it's the democrats' problems right now, and i haven't seen the announcement that elizabeth warren, for instance, has said she's closing up shop and clearing a path for oprah. so the democrats have to sort this out for themselves before republicans think they need to weigh in. >> it's interesting, patti, rich called it democrats' problem
because is it a problem right now? now that oprah winfrey and gayle king have not shut the door completely to the possibility, is this not the big question in democratic politics, electoral politics, campaign politics, until there's a definitive answer? brian stelter said, which i didn't realize, oprah will be out promoting a movie at some point. if she's out promoting a movie she will get asked this again and again and again. >> right. this actually reminds me of the hillary strategy of running in 2008. she had a book coming out so she was on the road, promoting the book and hearing from people encouraging her to run. she was in a listening phase. it's eerily similar to what oprah is doing in terms of in her listening phase. look, i don't know if she's going to run. i could definitely get behind a, you know, oprah winfrey as the first woman president of the united states. i think the standard rule for
politics just don't apply anymore and part of the reason that trump won in 2016 is because he was able to really, you know, tap into that anger that was in the country at the time that a lot of other candidates didn't realize and i think oprah could really sort of tap into the hunger in america right now for inspiration and hope and i think, you know, i think she could be very formidable. >> patti is right. let me just make one quick point, poppy. the issue that i think -- should oprah run, the issue that americans will have to figure out is, a, do they want another person as president with zero experience in politics in negotiating with legislatures and all the other stuff that goes with it, or b, has trump opened a door that had never been opened before, and people are more accepting to someone like oprah.
>> which was the point i think that nancy pelosi was making yesterday. exactly. so guys, let's turn to daca, this is very important, this is going to be a big part of the meeting today in just a few hours with the president and bipartisan legislatures. patti, your stance on this is fascinating as a democrat. you say why not just go ahead and spend $18 billion on the wall and give them that, to protect these 800,000 d.r.e.a.m.ers. that puts you in direct contrast with so many of your fellow democrats. explain? >> it does. let me be clear, i think the wall is stupid and useless. it's not going to do anything to secure the border. i think donald trump is one who ended daca and put us in this situation. and also, donald trump promised in the campaign that if he was going to build a wall mexico will pay for it, and he's asking the taxpayers to pay for it. i have to tell you, i travel the country, privileged to travel the country, and talk on college campuses and i cannot tell you the number of d.r.e.a.m.ers who
come up to me with tears in their eyes and fear in their hearts they don't know whether they may be able to finish their degree, they don't know whether they will have to leave their siblings and go to another country, their families. they don't know. a country they don't know. if we are willing to spend $1.5 trillion on a tax cut for big corporations and for the uber rich, i think $18 billion for a useless wall is worth it to keep these d.r.e.a.m.ers here and to let them follow their dreams. >> you know, rich, not every democrat thinks that way. i mean there are democrats here, kamala harris and others saying they would be willing to shut the government down unless there are protections for d.r.e.a.m.ers and they don't want to think about a wall. you have seen shutdowns. you've been there in congress when government shutdown before, working with people who were involved in such a thing. what are the risks here and where do you think this is headed? >> the risks of a shutdown are
philosophical more than realistic. everybody gets paid again and everybody runs around with their hair on fire, if i had hair it would be be on fire. let me go back to the wall thing for just a second about where that might get tied up in all this stuff. npr reported yesterday, maybe the day before, that border crossing arrests are at a 41 -- 46-year low. the lowest since 1971. if i were an anti-wall guy, which i by the way am, i don't want to spend another $15 billion real money, but i think that ought to be an arguing point by the democrats and trust republicans like me to say what problem are you trying to solve? because of trump's tough talk, people are not coming here, i think they're stopping in mexico, getting jobs there. so the -- i think tying these two things together is terrible policy and it's just going to lead to more trouble down the road where people say well you
did it for the wall, for daca, now we want to tie these two things together. >> yeah. >> all right. patti and rich, great to have you with us guys. >> thanks. >> good seeing you. >> breaking news on what could be a major development on the korean peninsula. talks between the koreas result in an agreement to hold further discussions military discussions. >> this morning, white house lawyers are anticipating a request for the president to be interviewed by the special counsel and his team. now they are trying to apparently limit the scope of what that interview would look like. moments from now on capitol hill, house speaker paul ryan will take reporters' questions. you know what he's going to be asked. will he answer those questions? next. patrick woke up with back pain.
you may be at increased risk for pneumococcal pneumonia, that can take you out of the game for weeks, even if you're healthy. pneumococcal pneumonia is a potentially serious bacterial lung disease that in severe cases can lead to hospitalization. it may hit quickly, without warning, causing you to miss out on the things you enjoy most. prevnar 13® is not a treatment for pneumococcal pneumonia...
it's a vaccine you can get to help protect against it. prevnar 13® is approved for adults to help prevent infections from 13 strains of the bacteria that cause pneumococcal pneumonia. you should not receive prevnar 13® if you have had a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine or its ingredients. if you have a weakened immune system, you may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects were pain, redness and swelling at the injection site, limited arm movement, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, joint pain, less appetite, vomiting, fever, chills, and rash. help protect yourself against pneumococcal pneumonia. ask your doctor or pharmacist about prevnar 13®. . the breaking news this morning, major developments in
the face-to-face talks between north and south korea. the two sides have agreed to hold military discussions. a very big deal. north korea will be sending a high-level delegation to the olympics one month from today. at the same time north korea is pushing back hard at south korean officials coming out after these talks and saying they have agreed to at least discuss denukization. to our senior international correspondent ivan watson in seoul with the latest. what else are you hearing? >> well, you know, all -- it was all smiles at the beginning of this meeting and clearly both the north and the south, their delegations wanted to make a deal here. there was one area where publicly there seemed to be friction. the north koreans didn't like the fact that south koreans brought up denuclearization at the talks that the whole world agrees on, that north korea should not have nuclear weapons they tested as recently as september. at the conclusion of the meeting
they insisted south koreas didn't care about nuclear weapons and went on to say, quote, our state of strategic weapons, are entirely targeting the u.s. it's not targeting our own people. it is not targeting china and russia as well. now in addition to that, there has been a lot of groundbreaking change here. we have the north korean in the span of a little more than a week saying we want to come to the winter olympics which are starting in just one month's time here in south korea. the south koreans want them to come as well. only two north korean athletes are really eligible and they've missed the application date but the international olympic committee is probable i going to waive that and let them attend, they're figure skaters, but the north koreans will send a high-level delegation, a cheering squad, art troupe,
visitor group, taekwondo demonstration street and journalists. sounds like a big entourage that will be welcomed here in south korea in the first sign of reduction of tensions really between these two neighbors in years. poppy and john? >> all right. ivan watson, thank you. let's dig into this more with our military analyst, lieutenant colonel francona and the adviser at the state department. this is big, military talk, begin with that. where do we go from here? >> well, let's not get too ahead of ourselves. what they said is they've agreed to possibly hold military talks. the military talks have not yet occurred and we don't frankly know what they will include. the military issues are rather complicated because -- >> actually, hold on, just looking at the statement it says interkorean military talks will be held. >> right. but this a date set? is there any discussion yet, any
announcement or agreement about what those military talks will entail? will they include the united states? will they include the united nations command which is actually in charge of maintaining the ar miss tas. just announced thing they will is great news but the military talks should be emphasized above all other kinds of cooperation and talks. again we have to tamp down the enthusiasm a little for now. >> colonel francona, the north koreans have made clear they have no interest in discussing denuclearization. how useful can military talks be without that even on the table? >> yeah. well that's the big gorilla and what everybody wants to talk about and we have to focus. the fact that they're talking is a good thing. i agree that they've agreed to talk for the past 60 something years and where has that gotten us. so as balbina says, let's not get too over enthusiastic about
this, but the fact that the two sides are talking is good. the fact that they're willing to discuss military topics is good. this is a north korean ploy, a move on the part of north korea, getting to set the agenda and say we want to talk about -- we want to talk about military but we will not talk about denuclearization and they -- this is a charm offensive. they're trying to make nice with the south koreans because if they can make a common goal with the south koreans that's edging out the united states. they want to take the united states out of this equation and talk one-on-one with seoul. >> in fact, balbina has north korea given anything up at all? seems like they've gotten everything they've wanted to down the line? >> exactly. what we saw yesterday, this theater, was actually a win/win for north korea and it's a win short term for south korea with potentially a lot to lose. this is riskier for south korea. let's be very clear, when we talk say military talks, that may or may not include the
nuclear issue. we tend to combine those two and they really are distinct. in the past 20 years, when the united states has engaged in some very, very serious talks with north korea at the highest levels and even reached several agreements, those were about nuclear issues but not really about the conventional military issues that sustain on the peninsula since 1953. >> quick follow-up, you argue that it is only insecurity on the part of kim's regime that will really bring them to the table. explain that and explain, do you get a sense that they are feeling insecure right now? >> well, it's very interesting. insecurity brings them to the table, but also, north korea also needs a little bit of confidence and i think that is what we are seeing from kim jong-un. his strategy for the last five years has been very clear, it's been very predictable, which has been to isolate actually south korea and ven put himself in the
strongest position possible to enter negotiations with south korea to get maximum benefits in the short term. >> you know, colonel, these discussions so far have been between north and south korea. these proposed military discussions are between north and south korea. does the u.s. have any role in here? how should the u.s. involve itself if at all in what's going on? >> well, i'm sure there's a lot of behind-the-scenes negotiations between, you know, the korea government and the united states. we are very close allies and everything that happens on that peninsula affects our military presence there. so i'm sure we're going to have a lot of input and influence. but, you know, the south korean government, this is a new south korean government, and they ran on the position of having better relations with north korea and they're forging ahead in doing that. north korea, as balbina -- i want to add to what she said, not only predictable, but it's been very effective over the last few years. kim jong-un has been effective in his foreign policy, he's
brought the united states to this position where the north and south are having bilateral talks and the united states is being frozen out and if the united states wants to come to the table, they're going to have to recognize north korea as a nuclear power which the united states will not do. i think he's been very effective in driving this wedge between south korea and the united states. >> and now south korean and north korean figure skaters will all be part of the winter olympics. colonel francona and balbina thanks for being with us. president trump's lawyers preparing for him to talk to the special counsel in the russia investigation. how will they try to limit the scope of questioning? that is next.
let's team up to get the lady of the house back on her feet. and help her feel more strength and energy in just two weeks yaaay! the complete balanced nutrition of (great tasting) ensure with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. ensure. always be you. won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. we know that when you're spending time with the grandkids every minute counts.
and you don't have time for a cracked windshield. that's why we show you exactly when we'll be there. saving you time, so you can keep saving the world. >> kids: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪ ♪ jen, i've got questions. boots or flip-flops? boot! great. smokey or natural eye? ugh, natural. good choice. how about calling or texting? definitely calling. puppies or kitties? sorry, cats. dry eyes or artificial tears? wait, that's a trick question. because they can both get in your way. that's why it is super-important to chat with your eye doctor if you're using artificial tears a lot and your eyes still feel dry. next question. guys, it's time for some eyelove!
cnn has learned that the president's attorneys are looking into ways to limit the scope of questioning that he may face if he is questioned by special counsel bob mueller. >> according to sources the president's legal team has been anticipating a request from mueller to speak to the president. shimon prokupecz in washington with the very latest on this. what's going on behind the scenes, shimon? >> yeah, that's right, john, this anticipation sort of, it's coming off a recent meeting the president's lawyers had with the special counsel and cnn is told that some of the options being considered by the lawyers, internal conversations by the president's lawyers, are, perhaps, where they would have the president testify under oath, maybe he would provide written answers to questions that the special counsel would provide, and then finally, whether trump's testimony should
be recorded in some fashion, whether that would be a video recording or some other thing, and fed out to a -- to the special counsel, maybe they would record it for future use. it's unclear as to what that option really means. and what we're basically told is that this interview would be conducted by the fbi and prosecutors, attorneys, for the mueller team and keep in mind that no date has been set, but at the very least, the lawyers for the president right now are researching and preparing for all of these options. john and poppy, as any good lawyer would want to do, the president's lawyers are hoping to limit the scope of the questioning so this doesn't become kind of a fishing expedition. >> what would that mean? what are they nervous they could phish into? what would they answer questions on? >> we know that special counsel was appointed after the firing of the fbi director, so
questions concerning the firing of the former fbi director, james comey, certainly within the per view of the special counsel. the big question is has the special counsel been looking at any of the president's financial dealings? keep in mind, before the appointment of the special counsel, the fbi was never investigating the president. they basically told him so much. comey told him that he wasn't under investigation. comey also briefed members of congress that the president wasn't under investigation. for any questioning that would occur now, the lawyers would hope would be limited to his actions while he has been in the white house. the comey firing and perhaps even the hiring of michael flynn. >> all right. shimon, appreciate the reporting. we are waiting because in moments house speaker paul ryan will take reporters' questions. you see gop leadership up there at the microphone. he will certainly be asked about the meeting at the white house, a showdown over keeping the
government open and immigration and questions about "fire and fury" the book questioning the president's mental fitness. what will he say? stay with us. the great emperor penguin migration. trekking a hundred miles inland to their breeding grounds. except for these two fellows. this time next year, we're gonna be sitting on an egg. i think we're getting close! make a u-turn... u-turn? recalculating... man, we are never gonna breed. just give it a second. you will arrive in 92 days. nah, nuh-uh. nope, nope, nope. you know who i'm gonna follow? my instincts. as long as gps can still get you lost, you can count on geico saving folks money. i'm breeding, man. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.
majority? >> i'm not going to negotiate with the media on such things. what we want to do is have a -- we want to have a daca compromise, make sure the daca problem is solved. as you've heard me say time and again this has to be balanced so we don't have a daca problem five or ten years down the road. while we deal with the daca issue which needs to be dealt with, we want to make sure we have the right kind of interior and border enforcement so we don't have another daca problem down the road. the president is inviting republicans and democrats from the house and senate to advance this issue. we're hopeful and confident these bipartisan talks will bear fruit and it has to be a good, balanced package and we want to see a solution on that. >> can you accept the premises you won't be able to sort through budget issues held over until you can figure out an agreement, bipartisan agreement, on immigration? >> i don't know if i accept any particular premise. only that we are having bipartisan conversations about all of these issues.
we've got c.h.i.p. that's expiring, having good bipartisan conversations about that, a bipartisan conversation about a cap agreement because there are things we want to address with the cap agreement like the military, and there are other things like daca. we have deadlines, we understand these deadlines and i think we're having good bipartisan conversations. i won't get into all the details of each one of these things but a lot of work we are have to do and all of us know we have to get working on these issues. yeah? >> on the topic of -- >> right there. sorry. >> thank you. mr. speaker, given the deadline next friday if you cannot reach a deal what's the current support level for a shorter term -- >> i'm not going to get into the hypotheticals. we're having good, fruitful conversations with our members. >> last question. >> mr. speaker, are earmarks making a comeback and can you get -- >> conversations are having a comeback. the rules committee hearings. we encourage our members all along to talk about budget process reforms. many of us have opinions on the
issue but i want our members to have conversations. we have members frustrated with the army corps of engineers and not been up to snuff to getting its job done among the concerns that the rules
committee is going to be having conversations about. >> mr. speaker -- >> thanks, everybody. >> you've been listening to house speaker paul ryan taking questions, not too many questions from the press on what republicans in congress are looking for in this deal over d.r.e.a.m.ers. what will he do? what will he allow to keep some 800,000 of these d.r.e.a.m.ers safe and in this country. will he insist on the border wall as the president has. paul ryan didn't tell us much right there, but there are discussions that will be going on at the white house shortly. >> very, very shortly. republican congressman tom marino of pennsylvania joins us now. good morning. >> good morning. >> thanks for being with us. >> my pleasure. >> highly-placed source in the middle of these negotiations said they are, quote, a mess right now. the way that speaker ryan
characterized them is good and fruitful conversations. how do you see it? >> well, i put very little stock in highly placed source as a prosecutor for 18 years, i deal in facts and the facts that i'm seeing that negotiations where coming along, most issues are agreeable, but there are a few issues that need detail, particularly on the daca issue concerning whether we pass a budget. i'm more a person that sees a glass half full here and speaking with my colleagues, we're all ready to get into this and make be sure that we make america great again. >> what do you want to see happen to the d.r.e.a.m.ers? do you want to see protections for these 800,000 people or do you see it as amnesty if they stay? >> no. i worked with kids all my life, protected them as a prosecutor, i'm a foster parent, as a big
brother, these kids grew up here in this country so we have to find a method by which that we keep these children here and these young people here, but in order to do that, as i heard paul say, we need to make sure that we fix the problem and don't have this issue down the road. a lot of fixing that problem is, border control. we will get to the point where -- i've had young people come and see me, ready to go to college or doing well in school and i know just by talking to these young kids that they're going to be an asset to this country. >> so you sae say reach a deal. . we have to reach a deal and that reflects what most americans are saying right now. >> yes. >> on opioids, so you withdrew your name from nomination for drug czar last year. this followed a pretty explosive report from "60 minutes" and "washington post" that argued
you were the chief supporter of a law that crippled the dea's ability to stem the flow of opioids across the country. you've been public saying how much you disagree with that reporting and it mischaracterized your role, but despite winning 70% of the vote the last time around, you're up for re-election and here's what your challenger writes about you, congressman. rather than standing up for his constituents who have been hit hard by the epidemic, tom marino made the opioid crisis worse and solicited campaign contributions from big drug companies and sponsored a bill that allowed lem to flood our -- them to flood our communities with opioids. is there anything you regret about your role in getting that law passed? >> no. first of all it was a good piece of legislation and it was because my conste wents could not get their medication, particularly those that were terminally ill and because of a rogue cop who didn't even read the legislation. that wasn't my legislation. the senate changed the wording in it. the wording that i had in there
was foreseeability and the dea and the justice department agreed to it. by the time it got to the senate, it was significantly changed to substantial and i'm told by the senators over there that it was changed by the justice department. they wanted a higher standard. let's face it, everybody voted for that legislation. even the president signed on it. >> yeah. >> so -- and i heard some testimony from an assistant at the dea, and i don't know if she wasn't aware of it, but she stated that that legislation, even with the word substantial in there, did not hinder dea. there was a retired dea agent that "60 minutes" interviewed that simply said, it wasn't the legislation, it simply was -- that's what doj wanted. >> let's look forward on this subject. you say that you didn't support
the legislation -- >> that passed. >> that bassed. claire mccaskill in the senate has proposed legislation to give the dea more enforcement powers to restore in some ways those enforcement powers that were changed with the language there. would you support that? >> well, it all depends on what the language is. the person from dea said that they didn't like the substantial, but they liked my language of foreseeability. i worked with the dea for 18 years and that's the premise they worked on. you want to talk about claire mccaskill, this is the one that said she wasn't there when the vote took place, and then she was called out when she was there and blamed it on her staff. she's in trouble in her district. like a lot of people did, they run with their tail between their legs when they all voted for this. we should go back to the language that says "foreseeability" and the dea has told me that that's the language that they want. >> just to be clear and put a
button on this before we move on, it sounds to me like you are saying, congressman, that you think the legislation that ultimately did pass with that language, is bad for america? has been harmful for america and you don't want to see it sustained. is that correct? >> i don't want to see the word "substantial" in there. i want to see "foreseeability." that's a lesser standard for them to get over. >> you want to change the wording in it at a minimum. if we can go back to the immigration discussion for one moment if i can, the president has insisted on funding for a border wall. we had rich gallon, a former republican on who said for what, right. illegal border crossings are at their lowest levels -- >> down 46%. >> so the wall is keeping who out, exactly. >> the wall is keeping out, the drug dealers out, the criminals out, and people out that shouldn't be here that want to come and are trying to examine in the future. they're trying to come in today as we speak. we want to make sure who's coming into this country.
i'm second generation italian-american. my family came here. people should be able to come here, but we want to make sure those people are vetted. you know something, i do want to get back to one issue on the drug thing that you brought up, and that issue is, there was no due process taking place. we had a rogue cop and then we had a hit piece done by "60 minutes" and "the post" and we know how they are. since i'm a republican and they want to get even with trump this what is they try to do but we're dealing with that? >> the democrats voted for it. they made clear this was by and large a unanimous vote and we have asked the democrats about their votes on it. >> many of them. >> you know something, this is another thing, no one said a word about this. we sent this legislation around, we sent it to the dea, we sent it to anybody that had dog in the hunt, and they liked it. and then once -- >> congressman, we're not contesting that. >> actually since you are -- >> listen, you brought it up and
we're going to address this issue and here's the fact. everybody said that they voeltsds fvoted for the legislation, but when the "post" and "60 minutes" lied about it they ran for the hills. >> do you regret gsregret you'rp for the drug czar still. >> very much so. i don't mean to sound conceited but i would have been a very good drug czar because i've seen what happens -- what happened over my 18-year career and my policy was going to start with prevention, rehabilitation, and certainly putting the dealers in prison. >> on that point, why did you then withdraw your name from the nomination if you felt so strongly as you've made clear to us this morning, you didn't believe the reporting, why did you withdraw your name then? >> because it was making a problem for the president. he had other issues to deal with. and in order to get over that,
honey...♪ can we do this tomorrow? ♪ can we do this tomorrow? if you have heart failure symptoms, your risk of hospitalization could increase, making tomorrow uncertain. but entresto is a medicine that was proven, in the largest heart failure study ever, to help more people stay alive and out of the hospital than a leading heart failure medicine. women who are pregnant must not take entresto. it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren. if you've had angioedema while taking an ace or arb medicine, don't take entresto. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high potassium in your blood.
this morning russia is facing accusations that it is hindering the fight against isis in syria. coalition official says russian military officials turned down their request to strike isis targets near a key base used by u.s. troops. >> barbara starr has the latest from the pentagon. this is an interesting, potentially disturbing turn. why did this happen? do we know? >> we don't know. u.s. officials are telling our
own ryan brown that they're confused and they don't know why the russians turned down the request to bomb what the u.s. strongly believed were isis militants that were threatening this base that u.s. uses in southern syria. the u.s. went to the russians on the deconfliction line, that kel phone line, essentially that keeps the two sides from having accidents in the sky, and the russians said no, you can't bomb it. it's really interesting because it comes at a time, of course, when the world is so focused on the big russia meddling scandal in the election and it really underscores there still are these day-to-day strains in the u.s./russian military relationship, especially in syria and that russians, having their own problems there, they are publicly acknowledging their bases have been attacked by anti-regime forces, by insurgents. they have suffered airplane damage from attacks that they have had from drones flying over their bases, they've even had
two service members killed in an attack, so the russians feeling the strain of their own presence in syria and making things a bit difficult for the u.s. presence there. right now the u.s. has not c ducted the air strikes it wants to conduct in the area of southern syria to push isis back. this is a big stay tuned to see if the u.s. and moscow can work it all out. john and poppy? >> barbara starr at the pentagon, appreciate the reporting. thank you so much. minutes away from a high-stakes, bipartisan meeting at the white house. this is crucial. at stake is a possible, although not right now attainable, apparently, deal on what to do with hundreds of thousands of d.r.e.a.m.ers in this country and whether or not to build the president's proposed border wall. new developments ahead. stay with cnn. i did my ancestrydna and i couldn't wait to get my pie chart. the most shocking result was that i'm 26% native american.
i had no idea. just to know this is what i'm made of, this is where my ancestors came from. and i absolutely want to know more about my native american heritage. it's opened up a whole new world for me. discover the story only your dna can tell. order your kit now at ancestrydna.com. we know that when you're spending time with the grandkids every minute counts. and you don't have time for a cracked windshield. that's why we show you exactly when we'll be there. saving you time, so you can keep saving the world. >> kids: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪ alright, i brought in high protein to help get us moving. ...and help you feel more strength and energy in just two weeks! i'll take that. -yeeeeeah! ensure high protein. with 16 grams of protein and 4 grams of sugar. ensure. always be you.
your insurance on time. tap one little bumper, and up go your rates. what good is having insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance.
hi there, i'm brianna keilar in for kate bolduan. minutes from now, a big meeting at the white house. the fate of thousands of people and funding to keep the government running hanging in the balance. president trump meets with a group of congressional democrats and republicans to discuss the fate of d.r.e.a.m.ers, hundreds of thousands, 800,000, undocumented immigrants who came to the u.s. as children who could be facing deportation. the negotiations have hit a wall so to speak. president trump saying there will be no deal for protections unless a border wall is part of the deal. that wall, of course, was probably his biggest and most controversial campaign promise of all.